Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project originated in conflict.A dispute between Canada and the United States over trucking deregulation and the treatment of foreign carriers proved surprisingly contentious and difficult to settle.The industry was an important one, and there were no bilateral agreements covering it.The dispute, and its resolution, lay in domestic regulation, and politically experienced and articulate interests were involved on both sides.For the American government the issue was reciprocity; for the Canadian government it was sovereignty.For an international relations person with a lifelong interest in transport the issues were irresistible.Since the stakes were regulatory, understanding them meant understanding regulation, and this meant gaining knowledge of the regulated industry -particularly its organization, economics, technology, and clientele.Appreciating the political appeal of deregulation required a tour through the critical literature.Grasping the politics of change led into public policy, and trucking's provincial jurisdiction in Canada brought federalism into play.These issues were fused by events.The United States deregulated in 1980.The imbalance with still-exclusionary Canada led directly to complaints and a bilateral dispute.As Canada was successfully defending its regulation, the federal government was becoming greatly worried about trade and competitiveness.Those concerns led eventually to free trade negotiations with the United States.Meanwhile, transport reform was making its way forward.Both came to fruition in 1987 as a draft free trade agreement and a revised Motor Vehicle Transport Act.Since trucks are the prime vehicles of Canada-US trade, international competition was very much on the minds of deregulation's supporters and opponents.Both the United States and Canada deregulated just as a serious recession was beginning -1980 for the United States and 1990 for Canada (it wasn't until 1989 that all provinces had implemented the Motor Vehicle Transport Act).Trucking, a derived-demand industry, is immediately affected by
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".